tv Vice Presidential Debate PBS October 13, 2012 2:00am-4:00am EDT
>> the following is a pbs election 2012 special event. funding provided by viking river cruises, exploring the world in comfort. united healthcare, on-line at uhc.com. the corporation for public broadcasting and viewers like you captioning sponsored by macneil/lehrer productions welcome to the pbs newshour special coverage of the 2012 vice presidential debate
between vice president joe biden and congressman paul ryan of wisconsin. good evening, i'm judy wood roof. >> and i'm gwen ifill, tonight will be the only debate between the vice presidential candidates. it will be moderated by martha raddatz of abc news and it starts in less than a minute from the norton center on the campus of centre college in danville, kentucky. mark shields and david brooks are here with us and after the debate we will talk to newshour political editor christina bellatoni to presidential historian michael burb love plus jonathan martin of "politico" and sam youngman of routers will join us from the debate site. we'll also be streaming the debate on-line and offering additional content on our live blog. >> woodruff: and we are on the edge of our seats and now here's the moderator martha raddatz. >> good evening and welcome to the first and only vice presidential debate of 2012
sponsored by the commission on presidential debate. i'm martha raddatz of abc news. and i am db -- i'm honored to moderate this debate between two men who have dedicated much of their lives to public service. tonight's debate is divide between domestic and foreign policy issues. and i'm going to move back and forth between foreign and domestic since that is what a vice president or president would have to do. we will have nine different segments. at the beginning of each segment i will ask both candidates a question and they will each have two minutes to answer. then i will encourage a discussion between the candidates with follow-up questions. by coin toss it has been determined that vice president biden will be first to answer the opening question. we have a wonderful audience here at centre college tonight. you will no doubt hear their enthusiasm at the end of the debate, and right now as we welcome vice president joe biden and congressman paul ryan. (applause)
. >> okay, you got your little wave to the families in. it's great, good evening, gentlemen, it really is an honor to be here with both of you. i would like to begin with libya. on a rather somber note, one month ago tonight on the anniversary of 9/11 ambassador chris stevens and three other brave americans were killed in a terrorist attack in benghazi. the state department has now made clear there were no protestors there. it was a preplanned assault by heavily armed men. wasn't this a massive intelligence failure, vice president bide snen. >> it was. it was a tragedy. chris stevens was one of our best.
we lost three other brave americans. i can make absolutely two commitments to you and all the american people. one, we will find and bring to justice the men who did this. and secondly, we will get to the bottom of it, and wherever the facts lead us, wherever they lead us, we will make clear to the american public, because whatever mistakes were made will not be made again. when you're looking at a president, martha, it seems to me that you should take a look at his most important responsibility. that's caring for the massive security of the country. the best way to do that is take a look at how he's handled the issues of the day. on iraq the president said he would end the war. governor romney said that was a tragic mistake. we should have-- he ended it. governor romney said that was a tragic mistake. we should have left 30,000 troops there. with regard to afghanistan he said he will end the war in 2014. governor romney said we should not set a date, number one. and number two, with regard to 2014, it depends. when it came to osama bin
laden, the president, the first day in office, i was sitting with him in the oval office. he called in the cia and signed an order saying my highest priority is to get bin laden. prior to the election, prior to the being sworn in governor romney was asked a question about how he would proceed. he said i wouldn't move heaven and earth to get bin laden. he didn't understand it was about more than getting a murderer off the battlefield but about restoring america's heart and letting terrorists around the world know if you do harm to america, we will track you to the gates of hell if need be. and lastly, the president of the united states has lead with a steady hand and clear vision. governor romney, the opposite. the last thing we need now is another war. >> congressman ryan. >> we mourn the loss of these four americans who were murdered. when you take a look at what has happened just in the last few weeks, they sent the u.n. ambassador out to
say that this was because of a protest and a youtube video. it took the president two weeks to acknowledge that this was a terrorist attack. he went to the u.n. and in his speech at the u.n. he said six times, he talked about the youtube video. look, if we are hit by terrorists, we're going to call it for what it is, a terrorist attack. our ambassador in paris has a marine detachment guarding him. shouldn't we have a marine detachment guarding our ambassador in benghazi, a place where we knew that there was an al qaeda cell with arms? this is becomes more troubling by the day. they first blamed the youtube video. now they are trying to blame its romney-ryan particular for making this an issue. with respect to iraq, we had the same position before the withdrawal which was, we agreed with the obama administration. let's have a agreement to make sure we secure our game. the vice president was put
in charge of those negotiations by president obama. and they failed to get the agreement. we don't have a force as agreement because they failed to get one. that is what we are talking about. and when it comes to our veterans, we owe them a great debt of gratitude. for what they've done for us. including your son, beau, but we also want to make sure we don't lose the things we fought so hard to get. and with respect to afghan tan, the 2014 deadline, we agreed with the 2014 transition am but what we also want to do is make sure we're not protect ing weakness abroad. and that's what is happening here. this benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself. but unfortunately, it's indicative of a broader problem. and that is what we are watching on our tv screens is the unraveling of the obama foreign policy. which is making the world more chaotic and us less safe. >> i just want to talk to you about right in the middle of the crisis governor romney, and are you talking about this again tonight, talked about the weakness, talked about apologies from the obama
administration. was that really appropriate right in the middle of the crisis? >> on that same day the obama administration had the exact same position. let's recall that they disavowed their own statement that they had put out earlier in the day in cairo. so we had the same position. but it's never too early to speak out for our values. we should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting, when the mullahs in iran were attacking their people. we should not have called the share assad a reformer when he was putting guns on his own people. we should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights and we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts because what that does when we quiv kate on our values, when we show that we are fighting our own defense t makes us more weak t projects weakness. when we look weak our adversaries are much more will to -- >> with all due respect that is a bunch of malarkey.
>> why is that so. >> not a single thing he said is accurate. first of all -- >> be specific. >> i will be very specific. number one, the lecture on embassy security, the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for, number one. so much for the embassy security piece. number two, governor romney, before he knew the facts, before he even knew that our ambassador was killed was out making a political statement that was panned by the media around the world. and this talk about this weakness, i don't understand what my friend's talking about here. we-- this is a president who has gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do. this is the guy who has repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. this is a guy who brought the entire world including russia and china to bring about the most devastating, most devastating-- the most
devastating efforts on iran to make sure that they, in fact, stop what they are-- look, i guess, i mean these guys bet against america all the time. >> can we talk about-- let me go back to libya. >> yeah, sure. >> what were you first told about the attack? why were people talking about protests? when people in the consulate first saw armed men attacking with guns, there were no protests. why did that go on -- >> that's exactly what we were told. >> by who. >> by the intelligence community. the intelligence community told us that. as they learned more facts about exactly what happened, they changed their assessment. that's why there's also an investigation headed by tom pickering, a leading diplomat from the reagan years who is doing an investigation as to whether or not there were any lapses, what the lapses were, do that they will never happen again. >> and they wanted more security there. >> well, we weren't told they wanted more security there. we did not know they wanted more security. and by the way, at the time
we were told exactly, we said exactly what the intelligence community told us, that they knew. that was the assessment. and as the intelligence community changed their view, we made it clear they changed their view. that's why i said we will get to the bottom of this. you know, usually when there is a crisis we pull together. we pull together as a nation. but as i said, even before we knew what happened to the ambassador, the governor was holding a press conference, was holding a press conference. that's not presidential leadership. >> mr. ryan, i want to ask you about the romney campaign talks a lot about no apologies. he has a book called "no apologies" should the u.s. have apologized for americans burning korans in afghanistan? should the u.s. apologize for u.s. marines urinating on taliban corpses? >> oh, gosh, yes. urinating on taliban corpses, what we should not apologize for-- what we should not be apologizing for are standing up for our values. what we should not be doing is saying to the egyptian
people while mubarak is cracking down on them that he is a good guy. and then the next week say he ought to go. what we should not be doing is rejecting claims for calls for more security in our baracks, in our marine-- we need marines in benghazi. when the commander on the ground says we node more forces for security there were requests for extra security. those requests were not honored. look, this was the anniversary of 9/11. it was libya. a country we knew we had al qaeda cells there, as we know al qaeda and its affiliates are on the rise in northern africa. and we did not give our ambassador in benghazi a marine detachment? of course there's an investigation so we can make sure that this never happens again. but when it comes to speak up for our values, we should not apologize for those. here's the problem. look at all the various issues out there and it's unraveling before our eyes. the vice president talks about sanctions on iran. they've got -- >> let's move to iran. i would actually like to move to iran.
because there's really no bigger national security this country is facing. both president obama and governor romney have said they will prevent iran from getting a nuclear weapon, even if that means military action. last week former defense secretary bob gates said a strike on iran's facilities would not work, and quote, could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations. can the two of you be absolutely clear and specific to the american people how effective would a military strike be. congressman ryan. >> we cannot allow iran to gain a nuclear weapons capability. now let's take a look at where we've come from. when barack obama was elected, they had enough material, nuclear material to make one bomb. now they have enough for five. they're racing toward a nuclear weapon. they're four years closer to a nuclear weapons capable. we've had four different sanctions, three from the bush administration, one here. and the only reason we got
it is because russia watered it down and prevented the sanctions from hitting the central bank. mitt romney proposed these sanctions in 2007, in congress i have been fighting for sanctions since 2009. the administration was blocking us every step of the way. only because we had strong bipartisan support for these tough sanctions were we able to overrule their objections and put them, in spite of the administration. imagine what would have happened if we had these sanctions in place earlier. you think iran's not braz en? look at what they're doing? they're stepping up their terrorist attacks. they tried a terrorist attack in the united states last year when they tried to blow up a saudi ambassador at a restaurant in washington d.c. and talk about credibility. when this administration says that all options are on the table, they send out senior administration officials, they send all these mixed signals. and so in order to solve this peacefully which is everybody's goal, you have to have the ayatollah's change their mind. look at where they are. they are moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. it's because this administration has no credibility on this issue.
it's because this administration watered down sanctions, delayed sanctions, tried to stop us from putting tough thinks-- things into place. now we have them in place because of congress. they say the military option is on the table but it's not being viewed as credible. and the key is to do this peacefully to make sure we have credibility. under a romney administration we will have credibility on this issue. >> vice president biden. >> incredible. look, imagine had we let republican congress work out the sanctions. you think there's any possibility the entire world would have joined us? russia and china? all of our allies? these are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions, period. period. when governor romney's asked about it he said we got to keep these sanctions. when he said well, you're talking about doing more. are you going to go to war? is that what you want to do to you. >> we want to prevent war. >> the interesting thing is how are they going to prevent war. how are they going to prevent war. they say there is nothing
more that they say we should do than what we've already done. number one. and number two, with regard to the ability of the united states to take action militarily, it is not in my purview to talk about classified information. but we feel quite confident we could deal a serious blow to the iranians. but number two, the iranians are the-- israelies in the united states, our military and intelligence communities are absolutely the same exact place in terms of how close, how close the iranians are to getting a nuclear weapon. they are a good way away. there is no difference between our view and theirs. when my friend talks about fisile material they have to take this highly enriched uranium, get it from 20% up, then they have to be able to have something to put it in. there is no weapon that the iranians have at this point. both the israelis and we know, we'll know if they start the process of building a weapon.
so all this bluster i keep hearing, all this loose talk, what are they talking about. are you talking about to be more credible? what more can the president do, stand before the united nations, tell the whole world, directly communicate to the ayatollah, we will not let them acquire a nuclear weapon. period. unless he's talking about going to war. >> martha, let's look at this from the view of the ayatollahs. what do they see. they see this administration trying to water down sanctions in congress for over two years. they're moving faster toward a nuclear weapon. they're splitting the centrifuges faster. they see us saying when we come not administration when they are worn in, they need more space with their ally israel. they see president obama in new york city the same day netanyahu is and instead of meeting with him goes on a daily talk show. they see when we say that these options are on the table, the secretary of
defense walked them back. they are not changing their mind. that's what we have to do, is change their mind so they stop pursuing nuclear weapons. >> how do you do it-- you both saw benjamin netanyahu hold up that picture of a bomb with a red line and talking about the red line being in spring. so can you solve this, if the romney-ryan ticket is elected, can you solve this in two months before spring and avoid nuclear -- >> we can debate the time line, whether it's that sort of time or longer. i agree that it's probably longer. number two, it's all about -- >> you don't agree with that bomb and what the israelis -- >> we agree, i don't want to go into classified stuff. but we both agree that to do this peacefully you got to get them to change their minds. they're not changing their minds. and look at what this administration does -- >> let me tell you what the ayatollahs see. the ayatollahs see this economy being crippled.
the ayatollah sees that there are 50% fewer exports of oil. they see the currency going into the tank. he sees the economy going in a freefall. and he sees the world for the first time totally united in opposition to him getting a nuclear weapon. now with regard to bebe, he's been my friend for 39 years. the president has met with bebe a dozen times. he's spoken to benjamin netanyahu as much as he's spoken to anybody. the idea that we're not-- i was in, just before he went to the u.n. i was in a conference call with the president, with him talking to bebe for well over an hour. in stark relief n detail of what was going on. this is a bunch of stuff. look, here's the deal. >> what does that mean, a bunch of stuff. >> it means it's simply inaccurate. >> it's irish. >> it is, the irish call it malarkey. >> thanks for the translation. >> but last thing, the secretary of defense made it absolutely clear, he didn't walk anything back. we will not allow the
iranians to get a nuclear weapon. what bebe held up there was, when they get to the point where they can enrich uranium enough to put into a weapon. they don't have a weapon to put it into. let's all calm down a little bit here. iran is more isolated today than when we took office. it was on the ascendancy when we took office. it is totally isolated. i don't know what world -- >> thank heavens we had the sanctions in place. in spite of their opposition. >> oh gosh. >> they've given 20 waivers to this sanction. and all i have to point to are the results. they're four years closer toward a nuclear weapon. >> can you tell the american people -- >> by the way-- they are not four years closer to a nuclear weapon. they're closer to being able to get enough material to put in a weapon if they had a weapon. >> you're acting a little bit like they don't want one. >> no, i'm not saying-- facts matter, martha. you are a foreign policy
expert, facts matter. all this loose talk about them all they have to do is get to enrich uranium and a certain amount and they have a weapon. not true.zw> what about bob gates's statement. let me read that again. could prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations. >> he is right it could prove catastrophic if we -- >> what it does is undermines our credibility by backing up the point when we make it that all options are on the table. that's the point. the ayatollahs see these kinds of statements and they think i'm going to get a nuclear weapon. when we see the kind of equivication that took place because this administration wanted a precondition policy, so when the green revolution started up they were silent for nine days. when they see us putting
daylight between ourselves and our allies in israel, that gives them encouragement. when they see russia watering down any further sanctions, the only reason we got a u.n. sanction is because russia watered it down and prevented the sanctions in the firstyzv$:ozcw so when they see this kind of activity, they are encouraged to continue and that's the problem. >> let me ask you what is worse, war in the middle east, another war in the middle east or a nuclear armed iran. >> i will tell you, a nuclear armed iran which triggers a nuclear arms race in the middle east. this is the world's largest sponsor of terrorism. they have dedicated themselves to wiping an entire country off the map. they call us the great satan. and if they get nuclear weapons, other people in the neighborhood will pursue their nuclear weapons as well. >> vice president biden. >> we can't live with that. >> war should always be absolutely last resort. that's why these crippling
sanctions that benjamin netanyahu says we should continue, which if i'm not mistaken governor romney says we should continue. i may be mistaken, he changed his mind so often, i could be wrong. but the fact of the matter is he says they're working. and the fact is that they are being crippled by them. and we have made it clear. big nations can't bluff. this president doesn't bluff. >> gentlemen, i want to bring the conversation to a different kind of national security issue. the state of our economy. the number one issue here at home is jobs. the percentage of unemployed just fell below 8% for the first time in 43 months. the obama administration had projected that it would fall below 6% now, after the addition of close to a trillion dollars in stimulus money. so will both of you level with the american people, can you get unemployment to under 6% and how long will it take? >> i don't know how long it will take. we can and we will get it under 6%.
let's look at-- let's take a look at the facts. let's look at where we were when we came to office. the economy was in freefall. we had the great recession hit, 9 million people lost their job. 1.7-- 1.6 trillion dollars in wealth lost, in equity in your homes and retirement accounts for the middle class. we knew we had to act for the middle class. we immediately went out and rescued general motors. we went ahead and made sure that we cut taxes for middle class. and in addition to that, when that occurred, what did romney do. romney said no, let detroit go bankrupt. we moved in and helped people refinance their homes. governor romney said no, let foreclosures hit the bottom. but it shouldn't be surprising for a guy who says 47% of the american people are unwilling to take responsibility for their own lives. my friend recently in a speech in washington said 30% of the american people are takers. these people are my mom and dad. the people i grew up. my neighbors. they pay more effective tax
than governor romney pays in his federal income tax. they are elderly people who, in fact, are living off social security. they are veterans and people fighting in afghanistan right now who are, quote, not paying any taxes. i have had it up to here with this notion that 47%-- it's about time they take some responsibility here. and instead of signing pledges to grover norquist not to ask the wealthiest among us to contribute to bring back the middle class, they should be signing a pledge saying to the middle class, we're going to level the playing field. we're going give you a fair shot again. we are going to not repeat the mistakes we made in the past by having a different set of rules for wall street and main street. making sure that we continue to hemorrhage these tax cuts for the superwealthy. they're pushing the continuation of a tax cut that will give an additional $500 billion in tax cuts to to 120,000 families. and they're holding hostage the middle class tax cut because they say we won't
pass, we won't continue the middle class tax cut unless you give the tax cut for the superwealthy. it's about time they take some responsibility. >> mr. ryan. >> joe and i are from similar towns. he's from scranton, pennsylvania, i'm from wisconsinment you know what the unemployment rate in scranton is today. >> sure do. >> it's 10%. >> yeah. >> you know what it was the day you came in, 8.5%. that's how it is going all around america. look, you. >> you don't read the statistics, that's not how it is going t is going down. >> this is his 2 minute answer, please. >> did they come in and inherit a tough situation? absolutely. but we're going in the wrong direction. look at where we are. the economy is barely limping along. it's growing at 1.3%. that's slower than it grew last year. and last year was slower than the year before. job growth in september was slower than it was in august, and august was slower than it was in july. we're heading in the wrong direction. 23 million americans are struggling for work today.
15% of americans are living in poverty today. this is not what a real recovery looks like. we need real reforms for a real recovery. and that's exactly what mitt romney and i are proposing. it's a five point plan. get america energy nip by the end of the decade. help people hurting get the skills they need to get the jobs they want. get this deficit and debt under control to prevent a debt crisis, make trade work for america to make more things in america and sell them overseas. and champion small businesses. don't raise taxes on small businesses, because they're our job creators. he talks about detroit. mitt romney is a car guy. they keep misquoting him. but let me tell you about the mitt romney i know. this is a guy who i was talking to, a family in northborough, massachusetts, the other day. sheryl and mark nixon. their kids were hit in a car crash, four of them. two of them rob and reid were paralyzed. the romneys didn't know them. they weren't of the same church, they never met
before. mitt asked if he could come over at christmas. he brought his boys, his wife, and gifts. later on he said i know you're struggling, mark, don't worry about their college. i'll pay for it when mark told me this story, because you know what, mitt romney doesn't tell these stories. the nixons told this story. when he told me this story, he said it wasn't the help, the cash help, it's that he gave his time. and he has consistently. this is a man who gave 30% of his income to charity, more than the two of us combined. mitt romney is a good man. he cares about 100% of americans in this country. and with respect to that quote, i think the vice president very well knows that sometimes the words don't come out of your mouth the right way. (laughter) >> but i always say what i mean. and so does romney. >> we want everybody to succeed. we want to get people out of poverty, in the middle class, on to a life of self-sufficientsy. we believe in opportunity and upward mobility amount of that is what we push for in a romney administration. >> vice president, i have a
feeling you have a few things to say here. >> the idea if you heard that little soliloquy on 47% you think he just made a mistake, then i think you-- i got a bridge to sell you. look, i don't doubt his personal generosity. and i understand what it's like. when i was a little younger than the congressman, my wife was in an accident, killed my daughter and my wife. and my two sons survived. i have sat in the homes of many people that have gone through what i have gone through. because the one thing that can give people solace is to know they know you have been through it, that they can make it. so i don't doubt his personal commitment to individuals. but you know what, i know he had no commitment to the automobile industry. he just said let it go bankrupt. period. let it drop out. all this talk, we say saved a million jobs --00,000 people are working today.
and i have never met two guys who were more down on america across-the-board. we are told everything is going badly, 5.2 million new jobs, private sector jobs. we need more. but 5.2 million. if they would get out of the way, if they get out of the way and let us pass the tax cut for the middle class, make it permanent, if they get out of the way and pass the jobs bill f they get out of the way and let us allow 14 million people who are struggling to stay in their homes because their mortgages are upside down but they never missed a mortgage payment, just get out of the way. stop talking about how you care about people. show me something. show me a policy. show me a policy where you take responsibility. and by the way, they talk about this great recession, as if it fell out of the sky like oh my goodness, where did it come from. it came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time put a prescription drug benefit on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. i was there, i voted against
them. i said no, we can't afford that and now all of a sudden these guys are so seized with the concern about the debt that they created. >> congressman ryan. >> let's not forget that they came in with one party control. when barack obama was elected, his party controlled everything. they had the ability to do everything of their choosing and look at where we are right now. they passed the stimulus. the idea that we could borrow 831 billion, spend it on all these special interest groups and it would work out just fine. that unemployment would never get 208%. it went up above 8% for 43 months. they said that right now if we just passed the stimulus, the economy would grow at 4%. it's growing at 1.3. >> when could you get it below 6%. >> that's what our entire premise of our progrowth plan for a strong el middle class ask all about. getting the economy growing at 4%, creating 12 million jobs over the next four years. look at just the 90 billion dollars in stimulus, the vice president was in charge of overseeing this. 90 billion dollars in green
pork to campaign contributors and special interest groups. there are just at the department of energy, over 100 criminal investigations -- >> martha, look, his colleagues run the investigative committee spent months and months and months going. >> this is the inspector general. >> months and months. they found no evidence of cronyism. and i love my friend here. i am not allowed to show letters but go to our web site, he sent me two letters saying by the way, can you send me some stimulus money for companies here in the state of wisconsin. we sent millions of dollars. you know why he said -- >> did you ask for stimulus money. >> sure he did. >> on two occasions we advocated for constituents who were applying for grants. that's what we do. we do that for all constituents. >> i love that. i love that. this is such a bad program. and he writes me a letter saying the reason we need this stimulus t will create growth and jobs.
his words. and now he is sitting here looking at me, and by the way, that program, again investigated. what the congress said was it was a model, less than 4/10th of 1% waste or fraud in the program. and all this talk about cronyism. they investigated, investigated, did not find one single piece of evidence. i wish he would just be a little more can dad-- candid. >> was it a good idea to spend taxpayer dollars on ex-- electric cars in finland, was it a good idea to borrow money from countries like china an spend it on various different interest groups. >> it was a good ideas, moody's and others said this was exactly what we needed, to stop this from going off the cliff it set the conditions to be able to grow again. we have, in fact, 4% of those green jobs didn't go under-- went under, didn't work it is a better batting average than the investment bankers have, they have about a 40% -- >> where are the 5 million green jobs?
>> i want to move on here to medicare and entitlements. i think we've gone over this quite enough. >> by the way any letters you send me i will entertain. >> i appreciate that too. >> let's talk about medicare and entitlements. both medicare and social security are going broke and taking a larger share of the budget in the process. will benefits for americans under these programs have to change for the programs to survive? mr. ryan? >> absolutely. medicare and social security are going bankrupt. these are indisputable facts. look, when i look at these programs, we've all had tragedies in our lives. i think about what they've done for my own family. my mom and i had my grandmother move in with us who was facing alzheimer, medicare was there for her just like it's there for my mom right now who is eye florida senior. after my dad died my om and i got social security survivor benefits. helped me pay for college. helped her go back to college in her 50s where she started a small business because of the new skills she got. she paid all of her taxes on the promise that these
programs would be there for her. we will honor this promise. and the best way to do it is reform it for my generation. you see, if you reform these programs for my generation, people 54 and below, you can guarantee they don't change for people in or near retirement. which is precisely what mitt romney and i are proposing. look what obama care does. o bammar -- o bam ar kay takes 716 million dollars from medicare to spend on obamacare. even their own chief actuary medicare backs this up. he says you can't spend the same dollar twice. you can't claim this money goes to medicare and obamacare. then they put this new o kbam-- o bam ar kay board in charge of cutting medicare each and every year in ways that lead to denied care for current seniors this board by the way, 15 people, the president's supposed to appoint them next year. and not one of them even has to have medical training. in social security f we don't shore up social security, when we run out of the ious, when the program goes bankrupt, a 25% across-the-board benefit cut kicks in on current seniors
in the middle of their retirement. we're going to stop that from happening. they haven't put a credible solution on the table. he'll tell you about vouchers. he'll say all these things to try and scare people. here's what we are saying. give younger people when they become medicare eligible guaranteed coverage options that you can't be denied, including traditional medicare. choose your plan and then medicare subsidizes your premiums. not as much for the wealthy people, more coverage for middle income people, and total out of pocket coverage for the poor and the sick. choice and competition. we would rather have 50 million future seniors determine how their medicare is delivered to them instead of 15 bureaucrats deciding what, if, where, when they get it. >> vice president biden, two minutes. >> i heard that death pan el-- panel argument from sarah palin. it seems every debate i hear this stuff about panels. but let's talk about pled care. what we did is we saved 716-- $716 billion and put it back, applied it to medicare. we cut the cost of medicare.
we stopped overpaying insurance companies when doctors and hospitals, the ama supported what we did. aarp endorsed what we did. and it extends the life of medicare to 2024. they want to wipe this all out it also gave more benefits. any senior out there, ask yourself, do you have more benefits today. you do. if you are near the doughnut hole you have $600 more to help your prescription drug cost. you get wellness visits without copays. they wipe all of this out and medicare goes-- becomes insolvent in 2016, number one. number two, guaranteed benefit, it's a voucher. when they've first proposed, when the congressman had his first voucher program, the cbo said it would cost $6,400 a year, martha, more for every senior 55 and below when they got there. he knew that. yet he got it all the guys in congress and women in the republican party to vote for it. governor romney knowing that
said, i would sign it, were i there. who do you believe? the ama, me, a guy who has fought his whole life for this or somebody who would actually put in motion a plan that knowingly added $6,400 a year more to the cost of medicare. now they got a new plan. trust me. it's to the going to cost you any more. folks, follow your instincts on this one. and with regard to social security, we will not, we will not privatize it. if we had listened to romney, governor romney and the congressman during the bush years, imagine where all those seniors would be now if their money had been in the market? their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. and they eliminate the guarantee of medicare. >> here's the problem. they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar turning medicare into a piggie bank for obamacare. their own actuaries from the administration came to congress and said one out of
six hospitals and nursing homes are going to go out of business as a result of this. >> it's -- >> 7.4 million seniors are projected to lose the current medicare advantage coverage they have, that's a 3200 benefit cut. >> that didn't happen,. >> these are from your own actuaries. >> more people signed up for medicare advantage after the change. nobody is -- >> mr. vice president, i know -- >> i know you are under a lot of dur es to make up lost ground. but i think people will be better served if we don't keep interrupting each other. >> well, don't take all the four minutes then. >> we're saying don't change benefits for people 55 above. they already organized the retirement around these. >> let me ask you this-- what is your specific march for seniors who really can't afford to make up the difference in the value of what you call a premium support plan and others call a voucher. >> 100% coverage for them. >> that is what we are saying. so we're saying -- >> how do you make that up. >> by taking down the subsidies for wealthy
people. look, this is a plan, by the way, that 6400 dollar number was misleading then t is totally inaccurate now. this is a plan that is bipartisan. it's a plan i put together with a prominent democrat senator from oregon. >> there is not one democrat who endorses it, not one democrat who signed the plan. >> our partner is a democrat from oregon. >> and he says he no longer supports it. >> we put it together with the forrer clinton budget director. >> who disavows it. >> this idea came from the clinton commission to save medicare chaired by senator john broek, here's the point. >> which was rejected. >> if we don't fix this problem pretty soon, then current seniors get cut. here's the problem. 10,000 people are retiring every single day in america today and they will for 20 years. that is not a political statement. >> if we just did one thing, if we just, if they just allow medicare to bargain for the cost of drugs like medicaid can, that would save $156 billion right off the bat. >> and it would deny senior choices.
>> all-- it would deny, they are not denied, look, folks, on all you seniors out there, have you been denied choices, have you lost medicare advantage. >> because it working right now. >> because you changed the law. >> let me ask you, if it could help solve the problem, why not very slowly raise the medicare eligibility age by two years as congressman ryan suggests. >> look, i was there when we did that with social security. in 1983. i was one of eight people sitting in the room that included tip o'neill negotiating with president reagan. we all got together and everybody said as long as everybody's in the deal, everybody is in the deal, and everybody is making some sacrifice, we can find a way. we made the system solvent to 2033. we will not, though, be part of any voucher plan eliminating-- the voucher says mom, when are you 65, go out there, shop for the best insurance you can get. you're out of medicare, can
you can buy back if if you want with this voucher which will not keep pace, will not keep pace with health-care cost. because if it did keep pace with health-care costs there would be no savings. that is why they go the voucher. we will be no part of a voucher program or the privatization of social security. >> a vouch certificate you go to your mailbox, get a check and buy something. nobody is proposing that. barack obama four years ago running for president said if you don't have any fresh ideas, use stale tactics to scare voters if you don't have a good record to run on, paint euro upon enteras someone people should run from. >> you were one of the view lawmakers to stand with president bush when he was seeking to partially privatize social security. >> for younger people. what we said then and what i have always agreed is let younger americans have a voluntary choice of making their money work faster for them within the social security system. that is not what mitt romney is proposing. what we are saying is no
changes for anybody 55 and above, and then the kinds of changes we are talking about for younger people like myself, is don't increase the benefits for wealthy people as fast as everybody else. slowly rails the retirement age for time. it wouldn't get to the age of 70 until the year 2103 accord together actuaries. >> quickly, vice president. >> quickly, the bottom line here is that all the studies show that if we went with social security proposal made by mitt romney, if you are in your 40s now will you pay $2600, you get $2600 less in social security f are you in your -- now you get $4700 a year less. the idea of changing and change being in this case to cut the benefits for people without taking other action you can do to make it work is absolutely the wrong way. these, look, these guys haven't been big on medicare from the beginning. their party has not been big on medicare from the beginning. and they've always been about social security as little as you can do. use your common sense.
who do you trust on this? a man who introduced a bill that would raise it 6400 a year, knowing it, and passing it and romney saying he would sign it, or me and the president. >> that statistic was completely misleading but more importantly. >> there are the facts. >> there is what politician does when they don't have a record to run on. try to scare people from voting for you. if you don't get ahead of this problem, it's going to attack you. >> medicare beneficiaries. we're a simple question. >> medicare and social security did so much for my own family, we are not going to jeopardize this program. but we have to save it. >> are you going to jeopardize the 3r578, you are changing the program from a guaranteed benefit to a premium, whatever you call t the bottom line is people are going have to fay more money out of their pocket and the families i know and the families i come from, they don't have the money to pay more. >> that's why we're saying more more lower income people and less for higher income people. >> i would like to move on to a simple question for both of you.
and something tells me i won't get a very simple answer. but let me ask you this. >> i gave you a simple answer. he's raising the cost of medicare. >> okay, on to taxes. if your ticket is elected, who will pay more in taxes, who will pay less. and we're starting with vice president biden for two minutes. >> the middle class will pay less and people making a million dollars or more will begin to contribute slightly more. let me give you one won create example. the continuation of the bush tax cuts. we are arguing that the bush tax cuts for the wealthy should be allowed to expire. of the bush tax cuts for the wealthy, 800 billion dollars of that goes to people making a minimum of a million dollars. we see no justification in these economic times for those, and they're patriotic americans, they're not asking for this continued tax cut, they're not suggesting it, but my friends are insisting on it. 120,000 families by continuing that tax cut will get an additional $500 billion in tax relief in the next ten years. and their income is an
average of 8 million dollars well. want to extend perm neently the middle class tax cut for-- permanently from the bush middle class tax cut. these guys won't allow us to. you know what they are saying, we say let's have a vote. let's have a vote on the middle class tax cut and let's have a vote on the upper tax cut. let's go ahead and vote on it. they're saying no. they're holding hostage the middle class tax cut to the superwealthy. and on top of that they got another tax cut coming that is $5 trillion that all the study point out will, in fact, give you another $250 million-- $250,000 a year to those 120,000 families and raise taxes for people who are middle income with a child by $2,000 a year this is unconscionable. there is no need for this. the middle class got knocked on their heels. the great recession crushed them. they need some help now. the last people who need help are 120,000 families
for another $500 billion tax cut over the next ten years. >> congressman. >> our entire precise of these tax reform plans is to grow the economy and create jobs, a plan that is estimated to create 7 million jobs. we think that government taking 28% of family and businesses income is enough. president obama thinks that the government ought to be able to take as much as 44.8% of a small business's income. look, if you tax every person in successful small business making over $250,000 at 100%, it only runs the government for 98 days. if everybody who paid income taxes last year including successful small businesses doubled their income taxes this year we would still have a $300 billion deficit. you see, there aren't enough rich people and small businesses to tax to pay for all their spending. and so the next time you
hear them say don't worry about it, we'll get a few wealtheer people to pay their fair share, watch out middle class. the tax bill is coming to you. that's why we're saying we need fundamental tax reform. let's take a look at this way. 8 out of 10 businesses file their taxes as individuals, not as corporations. where i come from, overseas, which is lake superior, the canadians they drop their tax rates to 15%. the average tax rate on businesses in industrialized world is 25% and the president wants the top effective tax rate on successful small businesses to go above 40%. two-thirds of our jobs come from small businesses. this one tax would actually tax about 53% of small business income. it's expected to cost us 710,000 jobsment and you know what? it doesn't even pay for 10% of their proposed deficit spending increases. what we are saying is lower tax rates across-the-board and close loopholes primarily to the higher
income people. we have three bottom lines. don't raise the deficit. don't raise taxes on the middle class. and don't lower the share of income that is borne by the high income earners. he will keep saying this 5 trillion plan, i suppose. it's been discredited by six other studies and even their own deputy campaign manager acknowledged that it wasn't correct. >> well, let's talk about this 20%. you have refused, and again, to offer specifics on how you pay for that 20% across-the-board tax cut do you actually have its specifics or are you still working on it and that's why you won't tell voters? >> different than this administration, we actually want to have big bipartisan agreements. you see, i understand -- >> do you have the specifics, do you have-- do you know exactly what are you doing. >> look at what a rom-- look at what ronald reagan and tip o'neill did. they worked together out of a framework to lower tax rates and broaden the base. and they worked together to fix that. what we are saying is, here's our framework. lower tax rates 20%.
we raise about 1.2 trillion through income taxes. we forego about 1.1 trillion in loopholes and deductions. and so what we're saying is deny those loopholes and deductions to higher income taxpayers so more of their income is taxed, which has a broader base of taxation. >> can i translate. >> so we can lower tax rates across the board. here is why why i'm saying this. what we are saying. >> i hope i will get time to respond to this. >> will you get time. >> we want to work with congress on how best to achieve this. that means it successful. >> no specifics, then again. >> what we are saying is lower tax rates 20%, start with the wealthy. work with congress. >> you guarantee this math will add up. >> absolutely. six studies have guaranteed. six studies have verified that this math adds up. >> vice president biden. >> let me translate. let me have a chance to translate. >> i will come back in a second then right. >> first of all i was there when ronald reagan, he gave specifics to what he was going to cut, number one, in terms of tax expenditures. number two, 9 -- 97% of the
small business in america pay less-- make less than $250,000. let me tell how some of those other small businesses are. hedge funds that makes 6, 800 million dollars a year. that is what they count as small businesses because they are pass through. let's look at how sincere they are. ron-- governor romney on "60 minutes," i guess about ten days ago was asked, governor you pay 14% on 20 million dollars, someone making 50,000 dollars pays more than that. do you think that's fair. he said oh, yes, that's fair. that's fair. this is-- and they're going to talk, you think these guys are going to go out there and cut those loopholes. the biggest loophole to take advantage of is the carried interest loophole and capital gains loophole. they exempt that. now there's not enough, the reason why the aei study, the american enterprise institute study, the tax policy center study, the reason they all say it's going to taxes will go up on the middle class. the only way you can find 5 trillion dollars in loopholes is cut the
mortgage deduction for middle class people. cut the health-care deduction, middle class people, take away their ability to get a tax break to send their kids to college. that is why they -- >> is he wrong about that. >> he is wrong about that. you can cut tax rates by 20%. and still preserve these important preference force middle class taxpayers. >> not matsuzakaically possible. >> it is matsuzaka klee possible. it's been done before. it's precisely what we are proposing. >> it has never been done before. >> it has been done before, jack kennedy lowered taxes and increased growth. >> now are you jack kennedy. >> this is amazing. >> republicans and democrats have worked together on this. >> that's right. >> i understand you aren't used to being by artisan. >> but we told what we were going to do, when we did it with reagan we said here is what we will cut, this is what he said. show the details. >> that is how you get things done, let me say it this way. >> that is coming from the republican congress, working bipartisanly? 7% rating? come on. >> mitt romney was governor
of massachusetts where 87% of the legislators he served with were democrats. he didn't demonize them. he didn't demagogue them. he met with those party leaders every week. he reached across the aisle, he didn't compromise principless. >> and you saw what happened. >> he balanced the budget. >> if he did such a great job-- why isn't he even contesting massachusetts. >> what would you suggest beyond raising taxes on the wealthy that would substantially -- >> just let taxes expire like they are supposed to on those millionaires. we don't, we can't afford $800 billion going to people making a minimum a million dollars. they do not need it, martha. those 120,000 families make $8 million a year. middle class people need the help. why does my friend cut out the tuition tax credit for them? why does he go after-- why do they do that. >> you can declare anything else.
>> yeah, we're saying close loopholes. >> home mortgage deduction. >> for higher income people. >> you can guarantee that no one making less than $100,000 will have a mortgage deduction impacted? >> this tax. >> guarantee. >> this taxes a million small business. he keeps trying to make you think is just some movie star or hedge fund guy. >> 97% of the small businesses make less than $250,000 dollars a year. it would not -- >> there taxes a million people, a million small businesses. >> does it tax 97% of the american people. >> it tax a million small businesses who are the greatest job creators. >> and you're going to increase defense budget, and you're going increase the defense. >> we're just not going to cut the defense budget. >> you suggested 2 trillion. >> more than that. >> so no massive -- >> defense increase. >> you want to get into defense now. >> yes, i do, i do because that's another math question. >> okay, how do you do that? >> so they propose a $478 billion cut to defense to begin with.
now we have another $500 billion cut to defense that's lurking on the horizon. they insisted upon that cuts being involved in the debt negotiations. and so now we have a 1 trillion. >> let's put the automatic defense cut as side. no one wants that. but i want to know, how you do the math and have this increase in defense spending. >> $2 trillion. >> you don't cut defense by a trillion dollars, that is what we are talking about. >> what national security issues justify an increase. >> we're going cut 80,000 soldiers, 20,000 marines, 120 cargo planes. we're going to push the joint -- >> drawing down in one war. >> if these cut goes through our navy will be the smallest it has been since before world war i. this invites weakness. look, do we believe in peaceful shrink, you bet we do that means you don't impose these devastating cuts on our military. we're saying don't cut the military by a trillion dollars. not increase it by a
trillion, don't cut it by a trillion dollars. >> quickly vice president biden on this, i want to move on. >> we don't caught it and i might add this so-called, i know we don't want to use the fancy word sequester this automatic cut it that was part of a debt deal that they asked for. and let me tell you what my friend said at a press conference announcing his support of the deal. he said and i'm paraphrasing. we've been looking for this moment for a long time. >> can i tell you what that meant. we have been looking for bipartisanship for a long time. >> so the by spart -- by part tsangship is wlae voted for for automatic cuts in defense if they didn't act. and beyond that they asked for another-- look, the military says we need a smaller, leaner army. we need more special forces. we need, we don't need more m-1 tanks. what we need is more -- >> some of the military. >> not some of the military. that was the decision of the joint chiefs of staff, recommended to us and agreed to by the president that is a fact. they made the recommendation first. >> okay. let's move on to
afghanistan. >> can i get into that for a second. >> i would like to move to afghanistan, okay. and that's one of the biggest expenditures this country has made, in dollars and more importantly in lives. we just passed the sad milestone of losing 2,000 u.s. troops there in this war. more than 50 of them were killed this year by the very afghan forces we are trying to help. now we've reached the recruiting goal for afghan forces. we've degraded al qaeda. so tell me why not leave now? what more can we really accomplish? is it worth more american lives? >> we don't want to lose the gains we've gotten. we want to make sure that the taliban does not come back in and give al qaeda a safe haven. we agree with the administration on their 2014 transition. look, when i think about afghanistan, i think about the incredible job that our troops have done. you've been there more than the two of us combined. first time i was there in 2002, it was amazing to me what they were facing.
i went to the valley in kandahar before the surge. i sat down with the young private in the 82nd from an indian reservation who would tell me what he did every day. and i was in awe. and to see what they had in front of them. and then to go back there in december. to go throughout hall mand with the marines and see what they accomplished t is nothing short of amazing. what we don't want to do is lose the gains we've gotten. now we disagree from time to time on a few issues. we would have more likely taken into account the recommendations from our commanders general petraeus, general mullen on troop levels throughout the fighting season. we have been skeptical about negotiations with the taliban, especially while they're shooting at us. but we want to see the 2014 transition be successful. and that means we want to make sure our commanders have what they need to make sure that it is successful so that this does not once again become a launching pad for terrorists. >> martha, let's keep our eye on the ball. the reason i have been to
afghanistan and iraq 20 times. i have been throughout that whole country, mostly in a helicopter and sometimes in a vehicle. the fact is we went there for one reason, to get those people who killed americans. al qaeda. we decimated al qaeda central. we have eliminated osama bin laden, that was our purpose. and, in fact n the meantime what we said we would do, we would help train the afghan military. it is their responsibility to take over their own security. that is why with 49 of our allies in afghanistan we have agreed ian gradual drawdown so we are out of there by the year 20-- in the year 2014. my friend and governor say it's based on conditions, which means it depends. it does not depend for us. it is the responsibility of
the afghans to take care of their own security. we have trained over 315,000 mostly without incident. there have been more than two dozen cases of green on blue where americans have been killed. if we do-- if the measures the military has taken do not take hold, we will not go on joint patrols. we will not train the field. we'll only train in the army bases that exist there. but we are leaving. we are leaving in 2014, period. and in the process, we are going to be saving over the next ten years november $800 billion. we've been in this war for over a decade. the primary objective is almost completed. now all we're doing is putting the kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. it's their responsibility, not america's. >> what conditions could
justify staying, congressman ryan. >> we don't want to stay. look. one of my best friends in janesville, a reservive is at an operating base in eastern afghanistan right now, our wifes are best friends, our daughters are best friends. i want him and all of our troops to come home as soon and safely as possible. we want to make sure the 2014 is successful. that's why we want to make sure that we give our commanders what they say they need to make it successful. we don't want to extend beyond 2014. that's the point we are making. you know f it was just this, i would feel like we would be able to call this a success. but it's not. what we're witnessing as we turn on our television screens these days is the absolute unraveling of the obama foreign policy. problems are growing at home but jobs, problems are growing abroad but jobs aren't growing here at home. >> let me go back to this he says we're absolutely leaving in 2014.
you're saying that's not an absolute but you won't talk about what conditions would justify that. >> do you know why we say that, because we don't want to broadcast to our enemies, put a date on your calendar, wait us out and then come back. >> but agree with the time line. >> we do agree with the time line and the transition, but what we-- what any administration will do in 2013 is assess the situation to see how best to complete this time line. what we do not want to do is give our allies reason to trust us less and our enemies more-- we don't want to embolden our enemies to hold and wait out for us and then take over again. >> martha, that is a bizarre statement it 49 of our allies, hear me, 49 of our allies signed on to this position 49, 49 of our allies said out in 2014. it's the responsibility of
the afghans we have other responsibilities. >> do you think this time line-- we have soldiers an marines, we have afghan forces murders our forces over there. the taliban is-- do you think taking advantage of this time line? >> look, the taliban, what we found out and you saw it in iraq, martha, unless you set a time line, baghdad in the case of iraq and kabul in the case of afghanistan will not step up. they're happy to let us condition to do-- continue to do the job. international security forces to do the job. the only way they step up and say fellas, we're leaving. we trained you. step up. step up. that's the only way it works. >> let me go back to the surge troops that we put in there. and you brought this up, congressman ryan. i have talked to allots of troops. i've talked to senior officers who were concerned
that the surge of troops-- surge troops were pulled out during the fighting season and some of them saw that as a political move. so can you tell me vice president biden what was the military reason for bringing those surge troops home before the fighting had hend ended. >> by the way, when the president announced the surge, you'll remember, martha, he said the surge will be out by the end of the summer. the military said the surge will be out. nothing political about this. before the surge occurred, so you be a little straight with me here too. before the surge occurred we said they will be out by the end of the summer. that's what the military said. the reason for that is -- >> the military follows orders. i mean trust me, there are people who were concerned about pulling out on the fighting. >> there are people that were concerned but not the joint chiefs. that was their recommendation in the oval office to the president of the united states of america. i sat there. i'm sure will you find someone without disagrees
with the pentagon, i'm positive will you find that within the military. but that's not the case here. and secondly, the reason why the military said that is, you cannot wait and have a cliff. it takes, you know, months and months and months to draw down forces. you just cannot wait. >> let me try and illustrate the issue here. because i think this can get a little confusing. we've all met with general allen and general in afghanistan to talk about fighting seasons. here's the way it works. the mountain pass is filling with snow. the taliban and the terrorists and the acani come over from pakistan to fight our men and women. when it fills in with snow they can't do it. that is what we call fighting season. in the warm months fighting gets really high. in the winter it goes down. and so when admiral mullen and general petraeus came to congress and said if you pull these people out before the fighting season has end t puts people more at risk. that's the problem.
yes, we drew 22,000 troops down last month. but the remaining troops that are there who still have the same mission to prosecute, counterinsurgency are doing with fewer people. that makes them less safe. we're sending fewer people out, in all these hot spots to do the same job that they were supposed to do a month ago but we have 22,000 people out to do it. >> we turned them over to the afghan troops we trained. no one got pulled out that didn't get filled in by trained afghan personnel. and he's con plating two issues. the fighting season that petraeus was talking about and admiral mullen was the fighting season this spring. that's what he was talking about. we did not, we did not pull them out. >> the calendar works the same every year. >> it does work the same every year. >> spring, summer fall, it's warm or it's not. they're still fighting.
they're still coming over the pass,. they're still coming in, to all of these areas but we are sending fewer people to the front to fight them. >> that's right. because that's the afghan responsibilities. we've trained them. >> not in the east. >> let's move to another war. >> no in the east. >> . most dangerous place in the world. >> that's why we don't want to send fewer people. >> that is why you would rather-- you would rather send americans in. >> we are already sending americans but fewer of them. >> that's right, we're sending in more afghans to do the job. afghans to do the job. >> let's move to another war, the civil war in syria. where there are estimates that more than 25,000, 30,000 people have now been killed. in march of last year president obama explained the military action taken in libya by saying it was in the national interest to go in and prevent further massacres from occurring there. so why doesn't the same
logic apply in syria? >>s it's a different country. it is five times as large geographically. it has one fifth the population that is libya, one fifth the population, five times as large geographically. it's in a part of the world where they are not going to see whatever would come from that war, it has seep mood a regional war. are you in a country that is heavily populated in the midst of the most dangerous area of the world. and, in fact f, in fact t blows up and the wrong people gain control, it's going have impact on the entire region causing potentially regional wars. we are working hand and glove with the turks, with the jordannian, with the saudis and with all the people in the region, a tementing to identify the people who deserve the help so that when assad goes, and will go, there will be a legitimate government that follows on. not an al qaeda-sponsored
government that follows on. and all this loose talk of my friend governor romney and the congressman about how we are going to do, we could do so much more in there, what more would they do other than put american boots on the ground? the last thing america needs is to get in another ground war in the middle east requiring tens of thousands, if not well over 100,000 american forces. that, they are the facts. they are the facts. now every time the governor's asked about this, he doesn't say-- he goes up with a whole lot of verbage but when he gets pressed he says no, he would to the do anything different than we are doing now. are they proposing putting american troops on the ground? putting american aircraft in the airspace? is that what they're proposing? if they do they should speak up and say so. but that's not what they're saying. we are doing it exactly like we need to do to identify
those forces who, in fact l provide for a stable government. and not cause a regional sunni-shia war when assad falls. >> congressman ryan. >> nobody is pro posing to send troops to syria, american troops. now let me say it this way. how would we do things differently? we wouldn't refer to bash ar assad as a reformer when he's kills his own civilians with his russian-provided weapons. we wouldn't be outsourcing our foreign policy to the united nations giving a putin veto power over our efforts to try and deal with this issue. he's vetoed three of them. hillary clinton went to russia to try and convince him not to do so they thwarted her efforts. she said they were on the wrong side of history. she was right about that. that this is one more example of russia resets are not work. so where are we? after international pressure mounted then president obama said bashar a sad should
gallon. it's been over a year. the man has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people. and more foreign fighters are spilling into this country. so the longer this has gone on, the more people, groups like al qaeda are going in. we could have more easily identified the free syrian army, the freedom fighters working with our allies, the turks, the qataris, the saudis had we had a better plan in place to begin with working through our allies. but no, we waited for kofi annan to try and come up with an agreement to the u.n.. that bought bashar assad time. we gave russia veto power over our efforts through the u.n.. and meanwhile, about 30,000 syrians are dead. >> what would my friend do differently? if you notice he never answers the question. >> no, i-- we would not be going through the u.n. on all of these things. >> you don't go through the u.n.. we are in the process now and have been for months in
making sure that help, humanitarian aid, as well as other aid and training is getting to those forces that we believe the turks believe, the jordanians believe, the saudis believe are the free forces inside of syria. that is under way. our allies were all on the same page. nato as well as our arab allies in terms of trying to get a settlement. that was their idea. we're the ones that said enough. with regard to the reset not working, the fact of the matter is that russia has a different interest in syrian than we do. and that's not in our interest. >> what happens if assad does not fall? congressman ryan? what happens to the region? what happens if he hangs on? what happens if he does. >> then iran keeps their greatest ally in the region. he's a sponsor of terrorism. he'll probably continue slaughtering his people. we in the world community will lose our credibility on this. look, he mentioned the
reset -- >> what would romney-ryan do about that credibility. >> we agree with the same red line actually they do on chemical weapons. but not putting american troops in, other than to secure those chemical weapons. they're right about that. but what we should have done earlier is work with those freedom fighters, those dissidents in syria. we should not have called bashar assad a reformer. and we-- we should not have waited for russia to give us the green light at the u.n. to do something about it. they're still arming the man. iran is flying flights over iraq to help -- >> and the opposition is being armed. >> to help bashar assad. and by the way, if we had the forces agreement that the vice president said we bet his vice president see on in iraq, we probably would have been able to prevent that. he failed to achieve that as well, again. >> let me ask you quickly what is your criteria for intervention. >> in syria? >> worldwide? >> what is in the national interests of american the
people. >> how about humanitarian interest. >> it has got nobody the strategic national interests of our country. >> no humanitarian? >> each situation will come up with its own set of circumstances but putting american troops on the ground, that's got to be within the national security interests of the american people. >> i want to-- we're almost out of time here. >> that means things like em bargous and sanctions and overflights, those are things that don't put american troops on the ground am but if are you talking about putting american troops on the ground, only in our national security interests. >> i want to move on and i want to return home for these last few questions. this debate is, indeed, historic. we have two catholic candidates, first time on a stage such as this. and i would like to ask you both to tell me what role your religion has played in your own personal views on abortion. these talk about how you came to that decision. talk about how your religion
played a part in that. and please there is such an emotional issue for so many people in this country, please talk personally about this if you could. congressman ryan. >> i don't see how a person can separate their public life from their private life or from their faith. our faith informs us in everything we do. my faith informs me about how to take care of the vulnerable, of how to make sure that people have a chance in life. now you why to ask basically why i'm pro-life. it's not simply because of my catholic faith. that's a factor, of course. but it's also because of reason and science. you know, i think about ten and a half years ago my wife and i went to mercy hospital in janesville where i was born for ourselve enweek ultrasound for our first born child. and we saw that heartbeat,
our little baby was in the shape of a bean. and to this day, we have nick named our first born child lizza bean. now i believe that life begins at conception. that's why those are the reasons why i'm pro-life. now i understand this is a difficult issue. and i respect people who don't agree with me on this. but the policy of a romney administration will be to oppose abortion with the exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother. what troubles me more is how this administration has handled all of these issues. look at what they're doing to obamacare with respect to assaulting the religious liberties of this country. they're infringeing upon our first freedom. the freedom of religion by infringeing on catholic charities, catholic churches, catholic hospitals. our church should not have to sue our federal government to maintain their
religious liberties. and with respect to abortion, the democratic party used to say they wanted it to be safe, legal and rare. now they support it without restriction and with taxpayer funding. taxpayer funding in obamacare, taxpayer funding with foreign aid. the vice president hymn self went to china and said that he sympathized or wouldn't second-guess their one child policy of forced abortions and sterilization. that to me is pretty extreme. >> vice president biden. >> my religion defines who i am. and i have been a practicing catholic my whom life. and it is particularly informed my social doctrine. catholic social doctrine talks about taking care of those who can't take care of themselves, people who need help. with regard to with regard to abortion, i accept my church's position on
abortion as what we call a-- doctrine, life begins at conception, that's the churches judgement, i accept it in my personal life. but i refuse to impose it on equally devout christians and muslims and jews. i just refuse to impose that on others, unlike my friend here, the congressman. i do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that, women, they can't control their body it is a decision between them and their doctor, in my view, and the supreme court. i'm not going to interfere with that. with regard to at sought on the catholic church, let me make it absolutely clear. no religious institution, catholic or otherwise, including catholic social services, georgetown hospital, mercy hospital, any hospital, none has to either refer contraception. none has to pay for contraception. none has to be a vehicle to
get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. that is a fact. that is a fact. now with regard to the way in which we differ, my friend says that he well i guess he accepts governor romney's position now because in the past he has argued that there was rape and forcible rape. he's argued that in the case of rape or incest it would still be a crime to engage in having an abortion. i just fundamentally disagree with my friend. >> congressman ryan. >> all i'm saying is if you believe that life begins at conception, that therefore doesn't change the definition of life. that's a principles. the policy of a romney administration is to oppose abortion with the exceptionses for rape, incest and life of the mother. now i have got to take issue with the catholic church and religious lib erts.
>> you have on the social doctrine taken issues. >> if you haven't why would they keep suing you it is a distinction. >> i have to go back to the abortion issue, if the romney ryan ticket is elected should those who believe that abortion remain legal be worried? >> we don't think that unelected judges should make this decision. that people through their elected representatives and reaching a consensus in society through the democratic process should make this determination. the court -- >> the next president will get one or two supreme court nominees. that is how close row v wade is, just ask yourself, with robert bourke being the chief advisor on the court for, for mr. romney, who do you think he's like toe to appoint. do you think he's likely to appoint someone like scalia or someone else on the court far right that would outlaw
abortion. i suspect that would happen. i guarantee that you will not happen. we pick two people. we pick people open minded. they've been good justices, so keep an eye on the supreme court. >> was there a litmus test on that. >> there was no litmus test, we picked people with an open mind, did not come with an agenda. >> i'm going move on to this closing question because we are running out of time. certainly known, you said it here tonight, that the two of you respect our troops enoooy. your son has served, and perhaps some day your children will serve as well. i recently spoke to a highly decorated soldier who said that this presidential campaign has left his dismayed. he told me, quote, the ads are so negative and they are all tearing down each other rather than building up the country. what would you say to that american hero about this campaign. and at the end of the day are you ever embarrassed by the tone?
vice president biden. >> i would say to him the same thing i say to my son who did serve a year in iraq, that we only have one truly sacred obligation as a government. that's to equip those we send into harm away and care for those who come home. that is the only sacred obligation we have. everything else falls behind that. i would also tell him that the fact that he, this decorated soldier you talked about fought for his country, that that should be honored. he should not be thrown into a category of the 47% who don't pay their taxes while he was out there fighting and not having to pay taxes. and somehow not takinging responsibility. i would also tell him that there are things that have occurred in this campaign and ocrcu in every campaign that i'm sure both of us regret anyone having said,
particularly in these special, new groups that can go out there, raise all the money they want, not have to identify themselves, say the most scurrilous things about the other candidate. it's an abomination. but the bottom line here is i would ask that hero you referenced to take a look at whether or not governor romney or president obama has thehgzkw conviction to help lift up the middle class, restore them to where they were before this great recession hit and they got wiped out. or weather or not he's going to to focus on taking care of the very wealthy, not ask to make any part of the deal to bring back the middle class, the economy of this country. i would ask him to take a look at whether the president of the united states latz acted wisely in the use of force and whether the slip shod comments being made by governor romney serve our interests very
well. but there are things that have been said in campaigns that i find not very appealing. >> congressman ryan. first of all i thank him for his service to our country. second of all we are to the going impose the defer stating cuts on our military which compromises their mission and their safety. and then i would say you "' president four
table in any of his four years to deal with this debt crisis. i passed two budgets to deal with this. mitt romney put ideas on the table. we've got to tack they will debt crisis before it tackles us. the president likes to say he has a plan. he gave a speech. we asked his budget office. can we see the plan, they
sent us to the press secretary. he gave us a copy of the speech. we asked the congressional budget office tell us what president obama plan is to prevent a debt crisis. they said it's a speech, we can't estimate speeches. you see, that is what we get there this administration. speeches. but we're not getting leadership. mitt romney is uniquely qualified to fix these problems. his lifetime of experience, is proven track record of bipartisanship and what do we have from the president, he broke his big promise to bring people together to solve the country's biggest problems. what i would tell him is we don't have to settle for this. we can do better than this. >> i hope i will get equal time. >> you will get just a few minutes here, a few seconds, really. >> the two budgets the congress introduced have eviscerated all the things that the middle class cares about. it is not-- will knock 19 million off medicare t will kick 200,000 children off early education it will eliminate the tax credit people have to be able to send their children to
college. it cuts education by 450 billion dollars. it does virtually nothing except continue to increase the tax cuts for the very wealthy. and you know, we have had enough of this. the idea that the so concerned about these deficits, i pointed out, he voted to put two cars on a credit card and he did. >> we're going to the closing statements in a minute. you are gaeing to have your -- >> not raising taxes is not cutting tax, and by the way, our budget we have -- >> 3% a year instead of 4.5%. >> let me calm down things here just for a minute. and i want to talk to you briefly before we go to closing statements about your own personal character. if are you elected, what you could both give to this country as a man, as a human being, that no one else could. >> honesty, no one else could? there are plenty of fine people who could lead this country. but what you need are people
who when they say they're going do something, they go do it. what you need are when people see problems they offer solutions to fix those problems. we're not getting that. look, we can grow this economy faster. that is what our five point plan for a stronger middle class is all about, about get 12ing million jobs, higher tack home pay, getting people out of poverty into the middle class. that means going with proven progrowth policies that we know work to get people back to work. putting ideas on the table, working with democrats. that actually works sometimes. >> vice president k we get to that issue of what you could bring as a man, a human being. i really going keep to you about 15 seconds. >> well, he gets 40, i get 15. >> he didn't have 40, that's all right. >> let me tell you, i my record stand force it sell. i never say anything i don't mean. everybody knows whatever i say i do. and my whole life has been devoted to leveling the playing field for middle
class people, giving them an even break, treating main street and wall street the same, holding them to the same responsibility. look at my record. it's been all about the middle class. they're the people who grow this i:. we think you grow this country from the middle out, not from the top down. >> okay. we now turn to the candidates for their closing statements, thank you, gentlemen, and that coin toss again has vice president biden starting with the closing argument. >> well, let me say at the outset that i want to thank you, martha for doing this. and centre college. the fact is that we're in a situation where we inherited a god awful circumstance. people are in real trouble. we acted to move to bring relief to the people who need the most help now. and in the process, we, in case you haven't noticed we have strong disagreements but you probably detected my frustration with their attitude about the american people my friend says that
30% of the american people are takers. a romney points out 47% of the people won't take responsibility. he's talking about my mother and father. talking about the places i grew up, my neighbors in scranton and claymobt. he's talking about the people that built this country. all they're looking for, martha, all they're looking for is an even shot. whenever you give them a shot, they've done it they've done it whenever you level the playing field they have been able to move and they want a little bit of peace of mind. the president and ri not going to rest until that playing field is leveled. they, in fact v a clear shot and they have peace of mind. until they can turn to their kid and say with a degree of confidence, honey, it's going to be okay. it's going to be okay. that is what this is all about. >> congressman ryan. >> i want to thank you val, martha. danville, kentucky, centre college and i want to thank you, joe. it's been an honor to engage in 24 critical debate. we face a very big choice
what kind of country are we going to be. what kind of country are we going give our kids. president obama, he had his chance. he made his choices. his economic agenda more spending, more borrowing, higher taxes, a government takeover of health care. it's not working. it's failed to krot the jobs we need. 23 million americans are struggling for work today. 15% of americans are impoverty. this is not what a real recovery looks like. you deserve better. mitt romney and i want to earn your support. we're offering real reforms for a real recovery for every american. mitt romney is experienced, his ideas, his solutions. is uniquely qualified to get this job done. at a time when we have a jobs crisis in america. wouldn't it be nice to have a job creator in the white house? the choice is clear.
a stagnant economy that promotes more government dependence or eye dynamic growing economy that promotes opportunity and jobs. mitt romney and i will not duck the tough issues. and we will not blame other force the next four years. we will take responsibility and we will not try to replace our founding principleses. we will reapply our founding principleses. the choice is clear. and the choice rests with you. and we ask you for your vote. thank you. >> and thank you both again. thank you very much. this concludes the vice presidential debate. please tune in next tuesday for the second presidential debate at hoster university in new york. i'm martha raddatz of abc news. i do hope all of you go to the polls. have a good evening. (applause) >> woodruff: and with that this sole debate between vice president biden and his republican challenger
congressman paul ryan is over. we are watching them as they begin to leave the stage. i expect their wives and families will come up to join them. gwen, this has been a debate that was contentious from the first moment it began on foreign policy and it's moved across the spectrum from foreign policy to domestic. and we have seen quite a disagreement between these two gentlemen. >> ifill: the one thing about having only one vice presidential debate is you get to cover a broad range of issues. it's not just about domestic policy. it's not just about foreign policy. it's also about everything, even though they didn't get to a lot of issues, obviously. but what we saw was a actual debate t seemed that way, that they actually engaged with one another. >> the fact that they were sitting at a tabling to, it seemed as if they truly engaged on issues from libya, iran, the economy, taxes, afghanistan. let's get-- . >> ifill: i have to say, i have done two of these debates, one standing and one sitting, when they are sitting they are better debates. we go to the action from
syndicated colt up nist mark shields and david brooks. they have been watching the debate with judy and me in our studios. what do you think, david? >> it's about joe biden. first of all, you know, he sort of because of his persona, because of his facial expressions, he sort of becomes the center of attention. and so i think a lot of democrats will take a look at how aggressive he was. how aggressive he was at malarkey and all that stuff and will say yeah, that's what we wanted from obama. we wish he had done that. some people will look at the smirking, some will see as condescending and be a little offput, i suspect republicans will say tham. but dido think the least you could say about this debate is that it will have stanched the democratic sense that things are slipping away. because they will be cheered up by this. >> woodruff: mark, how do you see it. >> i thought the contrast in styles was remarkable. paul ryan for the first time on a national stage was incredibly cool and joe biden was incredibly passionate. i mean each was himself.
i do think that stylistickically joe biden did the democrats an enormous service tonight. he brought passion, emotion. he made the case. he did 47%. de the two letters that paul ryan had sent for stimulus. i mean he went after romney's tax rate, and compare tdz to that of ode people and said people fighting in afghanistan tonight are not freeloaders. i mean i thought in that sense, i thought ryan handled himself quite well. there was no misstep that i saw. and he just, i thought it was a very good exchange. >> woodruff: paul ryan had a quip tonight at one point he said that joe biden was under dur es to make up for lost ground. he was obviously referring to the president's performance which was widely judged especially by democrats to be lackluster this week. de make up for lost ground. >> i think for democrats. i'm trying to put myself in the mind of independents.
do they see biden and say oh, he's really passionate. or do they say that guy is just one of those fighting politicians. >> woodruff: is he grinning or smirking. >> right so i personally like talking to a biden rather than listening to joe biden so i didn't like the listening manner. i thought it was too histrionic. >> woodruff: you mean when he was smiling. >> smyling and interrupting, i thought a little too much. and so but when you think about independent voters, one of the things that tremendously appeals to them and did in the last debate is who can make politics better. and so that, who can change the tone, as george w. bush, without can get us beyond the stale debate. i'm not sure they will see either of those two as getting us beyond the bitter partisan. >> there were a couple of twists in there. i thought that president biden said vice president biden said about the capital gains, carried interest, being two of the big loopholes. i hadn't noticed the administration pushing hard to appeal-- but at the same
time i just thought he really kind of hung ryan out to dry on the no detail from the tax plans. i mean that really was exposed. and you know his answer is we're going have a bipartisan solution. and that really does, i mean people -- >> you didn't get as much chance on medicare. frankly from my interest i thought there was too little time on domestic policy which is what people are voting on. so i thought that sort of minimized that he definitely hit ryan very hard on the tax stuff. didn't get the medicare. but the chief biden-obama vulnerability is still tlk, the lack of a positive agenda. so you saw both vulnerabilities. >> that is what i wanted to ask both of you. if you think one or the other got the better of more arguments or less or it was a draw? i mean how did you see it on the just the sum total of the arguments that they were making? >>. >> probably belying my own biaseses with. >> woodruff: that is why we have you here. >> and mr. bias, i thought
biden, i thought biden had a bigger task to perform tonight and i thought he did it. ryan's job was certainly not to lose momentum from last week and i think what was fascinating to me was that biden when asked of romney a lot more ferrociously and aggressively than ryan went after president obama, until the very end. >> woodruff: . >> ifill: in the foreign policy section, on which there was a lot. he did say more than once it was devastating shall and the unraveling of u.s. foreign policy. so he yearly was going after the obama administration policy when it came to foreign policy. >> but in a sense did was personalizing the roomny inconsistencies on the auto plan, just confronting when paul ryan sort of rap sodized about romney's personal again rossities and charitableness and came right back and said it wasn't the auto industry t
was the autoworkers and so forth. i thought in that sense t comes down to what your taste is. and my taste is joe biden. >> one of the interesting things is the contrast of age, contrast of generation, contrast of political styles. so biden grows up in a generation really harkening back to the new deal where politicians were relaxed and sort of out there. ryan grows up in the television era. and very disciplined, very missed, very policy, even when he was asked a character question, in the end he talked about policy. >> woodruff: you make an interesting point about their age gap. in fact this is the largest age gap between two, 42 and 69. >> more than reagan and mondale, which we heard so much about, you know, the comment that reagan made about mondale's age or lack of experience or inexperience. and also more than we saw with cheney and edwards a few years ago where there also seemed to be a huge gap. so i wonder if the smiling wasn't about exacerbating that gap. >> i found it insulting because maybe i'm more closer to ryan's age than to
bidens. but i do think there is a difference between children of maybe the 50s, 60s and children of the reagan remembera-- era. there is just a different tone in pow how people talk. and i think you saw it there. >> well, we-- i think we're going to go to our colleague jeffrey brown now who is with-- jeffrey, are threw in other studio. >> brown: i am here. i'm joined by presidential historian michael burb love and our political edit ever christina. and we are going try to dot first wrap of history and the longer look. christina you got the first draft which these days is a zillion tweets, what was happening. >> a lot of things. partisans on twitter looking at facebook were far more encouraged on both sides. you saw a lot of desperation and people wanting to sort of see the president do better last week and a lot of republicans saying that mitt romney really won. tonight you see democrats far more encouraged by what you were seeing. but you saw the campaigns
taking more control of the messages on twitter. the obama campaign or partisans-- . >> brown: you mean as it was happening. >> on the democratic tag start aid hashtag called ryan's choice where they put in some their policy zingers as the debates going. that remained a trending topic for most of the night which did not happen last week amount of that went out of control with other topics. and ended up being more interesting. and then you also saw a lot of the reaction to as mark and david and gwen and judy were talking about, the facial expressions of these candidates. >> brown: particularly joe biden. >> but also paul ryan and his look. we see on twit certificate that people will create pictures or funny things like that. and get a little bit more of the joking elements. but the policy did shine through. >> michael, it was said going in, we said it earlier tonight that this had a lot more writing on it than most usual vice president debates am how did it feel to you? >> well, you know, if you look for historical precedent, 1976 second debate gerald ford made this enormous gaffe saying that the soviets did not control
eastern europe. then came a vice presidential debate between walter mondale and his choice bob dole, everyone on the republican side was hoping that dole and inn that debate would stop the bleeding. dole did the opposite. and said you know, democratic presidents have been responsible for 1.6 million deaths in the 20th century, didn't help at all. i think in contrast to that, if democrats were looking at this debate as something that would stop the bleeding that started when barack obama had a bad night last week, i think this is going to do it. >> brown: all right, that sea a first look. going it to throw it back to judy and gwen now and come back later. >> we are going to go back to the debate side in kentucky at centre college where jonathan martin of "politico" and sam youngman of routers have been covering this. jonathan martin, you have spent some time follows this joe biden around the obama biden campaign. getting your tie adjusted right now. we want to you have injure tie on straight for this. jonathan, just based on-- based
on watching joe biden on the trail and you know what the obama-biden team has been doing. how did joe biden come across tonight. what did he accomplish in. >> judy, this was the full joe biden. joe biden in full tonight. what you saw this evening, here at centre colleges with what people who have been watching him on the campaign trail, not just this year but the last 40 years in american politics has seen. he is demon strattive, at times over the top. he is what he is. some folks like t others don't. but it's raw, it's authentic and it's certainly real. look, i think he had some clear blows tonight on paul ryan, on substance, certainly on the issue about whether or not ryan wanted to have a stimulus in wisconsin for his district. on question about its entitlements in this country, certainly on the romney comment over the 47% of americans who don't pay taxes. the big question to me is was biden's bidenism, his
mannerism, his reaction on so many of those shots that we saw on our tv screen tonight, does that overshadow some of what i think were some good moments of substance tonight for democrats. >> you're home tonight in kentucky but you have been spending time on the road traveling not only with mitt romney but also with paul ryan. did he come with a plan tonight that he executed? >> well, i don't know that he was ever able to get whatever plan he might have had into motion because joe biden was on offense from the very beginning. look, paul ryan told us yesterday in st. pete, he said you know, look, this is going to be my first big debate on the big stage. joe biden has done this a hundred times. i think it showed tonight. i think biden's message was basically welcome to my turf, rookie. the thing that paul ryan i think did very well tonight was keep his compose sure. i think people that like joe biden really liked what they saw tonight. people that don't like joe biden probably found him on knock-- obnoxious and overbearing. my sense is that paul ryan probably scored points with
people when he asked the vice president to stop interrupting, that the american people would be better served. by a better, more polite debate. i don't know that, you know, i don't know that paul ryan did any real damage tonight. but he certainly didn't draw any blood. >> woodruff: jonathan martin, to the extent the obama campaign was feeling the need tonight for the vice president to get them back on track, is there a sense that the vice president was able to pull that off tonight? >> well, that's what ot bama posters are saying right now. hi one senior obama official e-mail me and say if you are talk approximating about mannerisms you lost, which is to say that the romney focus on the vice president's mannerisms was a concession that on substance they lost the evening. i think the point that christina made earlier is right on. for partisans on both sides tonight, you felt good. ryan got in there his first debate against a 40 year veteran of american politics, he did okay. and biden i think he showed
the kind of offense, the aggressiveness that so many democrats were hoping for from the president last week. i think democrats are feeling a heck of a lot better tonight than they were last week in denver. the big question to me is what did that remaining middle out there tonight in places like ohio, in florida and virginia, what did they think. were they turned off by biden's interrupting, by biden's sighs and his laugh. or were they you know, content to think that's just biden being biden. he is an old politician who talks a lot. and he is who he is. and the fact is, you know, on substance perhaps they liked what he had to say more. i really thoughts that when he went after ryan on entitlements saying where i come from, folks can't afford that, was really effective. and then towards the end of the debate real fast when biden said, when martha raddatz asked the question of paul ryan, do women in this country have to worry about legal a box the pause that ryan gave, i thought,
for a lot of suburban women was damaging. >> let me ask that question to sam youngman, paul ryan doesn't spend a lot of time talking about foreign policy on the campaign trail even though that was the bulk of this debate tonight. i wonder how much, de seem to you like he was cramming for that, and also it did he seem like he was prepared for that question about abortion and catholicism at the end? >> well, i don't think there is any question that the romney-ryan ticket would have prefered that all 90 minutes tonight would have been about the economy, it was maybe 10 to 15 minutes just on benghazi. but nass's not what the debate was. i think congressman ryan showed that he had been really cramming on foreign policy. he showed i think great familiarity with the situation in afghanistan, even though i think the romney-ryan ticket continues to struggle to sort of show what they would do differently in afghanistan. quite frankly, my brother say veteran of afghanistan i was thrilled to hear it discussed so much tonight. but i do think one of the criticisms will you hear from republicans probably
going forward was that there wasn't enough discussion of the economy tonight. i don't, i tend to agree with jonathan, i saw a very long pause from congressman ryan when the discussion turned to abortion. i don't think he was probably prepared to discuss that. at least not in such a point-blank fashion. de get some questions on it yesterday. but i don't think that he was ready for that to be such a hot debate topic. >> woodruff: sam youngman and jonathan martin, we thank you both for joining us. appreciate it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> woodruff: and now we are back in washington and we want to go once again to our colleagues here in the other studio, jeffrey brown. >> brown: i want to pick up with you, christina. pick up on what we were hearing about the mannerisms versus substance, the screens we were talking about, the dual screens, sometimes the split screen, depends how people watch. >> it really does. you are influenced by ba you are seeing on that screen and maybe its second screen, pew research center just came out with a poll today that showed that 11% of people that are watching these debates were watching it with another screen, whether that is your laptop
on your lap, your computer there with you or maybe on your iphone and that means are you monitoring your social network, posting on face boork, reading what people are say on twitter and influenced by what people are saying. the reaction people were saying immediately that the president lost that debate and that sort of began early on in the debate. well this evening people felt like joe biden came out swinging, was aggressive and that sur fasd but one of the campaigns these are trying to look at young varieties. the president has an advantage with them but the romney campaign is trying to target them too. they have a very strong digital campaign they are trying to reach them, through all of these different social networks to be able to share photos, images, personal stories that you heard tonight in that debate and really trying to push that. >> so a general and a specific question. does that change the way we take in these debates? >> enormously. because in the past people would be basically glued to the screen, for most of the time. and you know one big difference i think it is so much better. because we were talking a moment ago about 1976 when
gerald ford was talking about the soviets not dominating eastern europe. the polling for the first 24 to 48 hours found that many americans didn't realize that that was a gaffe. didn't hurt ford until elite commentators like all of us said that the president had said something that he shouldn't have said. >> present company not accepted. >> we were not doing it at that time. but nowadays, you wouldn't have to wait its 48 hours because with twitter instantly a lot of people would have known that that was a very bad thing. >> so specifically on this debate, does it feel like the substance, i mean, and the-- does it feel like it will be one that is remembered for something specific? >> i think so. if barack obama wins, i think this is the night he turns things around. and the other thing is that the times that people win a vice presidential debate is when they control the air space. they look more like a plausible president. i think tonight joe biden largely learned from another figure in american politics. and that was the way mitt romney controlled that airspace last week.
>> to point out quickly, twitter also asked people to do fact checking. joe biden criticized congressman ryan for voting for the wars is clear quickly you could say actually joe biden also voted for those wars and he left that out which is something you might need to read in your newspaper. >> christina, michael burb love, thank so much, back to you guys. >> woodruff: thanks, jeff, back here with mark shields and david brooks. >> back with the people -- >> good to be with you, gail. >> woodruff: exactly where i am going here, thank you, michael so let's go back to the war of scranton versus janesville there is in the closing statements as well as throughout. they were both trying to prove who was realer. who won that fight? >> joe biden won that fight. he was more real it say different reality. i mean scranton, it's honeymooners versus michael j keaton. they are just from different eras. and so i do think biden naturally talks in the language of the kitchen table. and ryan naturally talks in the language of jack kemp
the empower america heritage foundation. so if you just went with realer you have to say biden. >> woodruff: and he knew the unemployment rate. >> he did. i thought that tonight you found out why barack obama picked joe bide nen 2008. barack obama is the coolness of paul ryan, and even more-- less bombastic, or garrulous, or gregarious or passionate as joe biden is. and he realized the need he had. and i don't think he ever probably realized it fully until tonight how much he needed it. and i think that, it's a complement to obama's coolness, that joe may be tough as a steady diet, 365, but when you want somebody to go out and make the case about real people, he is authentic and he is
persuasive. >> woodruff: he does not look for passion. when he's making the case t just, it just exudes from everything he does. >> it really does. it really does. >> i have a picture of my phone with the water, super soaker water gunrunning around. he's just out there. i would say, though, that he, i don't think this changed the campaign particularly. i think it an extraordinary vice presidential debates that changes the campaign. i think it improves the food for democrats. whether if changes, it might-- i really do not think if will change the momentum. >> it possible you were talking about the independents but the democrats who were so spiritedded. >> let me disagree with david. i think the mood was the campaign. i mean this week the number of democrats i talked to who were down on barack obama, who were perplexed, who didn't know what had happened, what was wrong, i mean ones that have been picking out their inaugural gash just ten days ago, now all of a sudden they were really apprehensive and angry and disappointed. and i think that mood -- >> in the president.
>> in the president and the prospects, and the idea that mitt romney was going to be president. >> is anybody going to tell a pollster a different question. to me the only people who could possibly tell a pollster a different answer would be independents who are turned off oh it's just politics as usual. and i think that would be a reasonable, quite a small number. >> woodruff: what is this they say, democrats fall in love with their candidates. >> they fall in love, it's all about emotion. >> yeah, i think that the message obviously was intend ford working class and blue collar. >> ifill: we'll know in the hours to come whether they got that michael-- michael shields, mark shields. >> just one final thing. i do think the split screen, i mean-- watching the reaction. >> i mean i think that could be a problem for joe as the day goes forward and we see a lot of tape of that. >> mark shields, david brooks, thank you very much. that ends our coverage of the only debate between vice president joe biden and wisconsin congressman paul ryan. we'll have live coverage of the remaining presidential
debates here on pbs. next week president obama and former governor romney will meet for the second time at hoster university in hempstead, new york. cnn candy crowley will be the moderator for that evening. >> we will see you then and right here tomorrow night at our regular newshour time. but our debate analysis continues on-line with political editor christina on our after-hours live stream. for now, i'm judy woodruff. >> and i'm gwen ifill. thank you and good night.re >> major funding for the pbs newshour has been provided by: